Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for the erection of 27 residential units including affordable dwellings following demolition

of existing buildings together with associated infrastructure pursuant to application 15/0519/OUT.

 

The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment sheet and revising the recommendation to remove condition 8.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from 3 local residents:

      i.         Did not object to the development in principle, but queried why plots 9 and 18 had to be wedged up against the boundary. This was bad planning.

    ii.         Took issue with the Applicant’s description of the proposed buildings.

   iii.         The development would impact on neighbouring properties.

  iv.         Requested the application be deferred to allow the Developer time to consider Objector’s comments and possibly amend the application.

    v.         Flats opposite Tavistock Road were too high at 3-5 storeys and would impact on (existing) neighbouring properties. They would:

a.    Be inappropriate for the character of the area.

b.    Impact on neighbours’ amenity space.

c.    Cause overlooking and loss of privacy.

  vi.         Queried if the building orientation could be altered by 180 degrees if the height could not. The building could then overlook trees and open spaces instead of peoples’ living spaces.

 vii.         Mature trees in the area attracted many species of birds and wildlife.

 

Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Sheil (Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.         Was speaking on behalf of residents from 305, 309, and 311 Histon Road.

a.    They understood the need for housing in the area.

b.    Broadly supported the scheme, but had some concerns.

    ii.         Plot 9 and 18 needed to be carefully considered at the outline planning stage in 2015/16.

   iii.         The buildings and garages on Plots 9 and 18 were “jammed up against the boundary”. Queried why the property on Plot 9 was positioned where it was and if it could be moved away from the boundary. Suggested moving Plot 18 garage away from boundary to increase the internal space for new residents.

  iv.         Queried if building heights were appropriate for Plots 9 and 18. Suggested the building on Plot 18 should be a bungalow, not a multi-storey building, as it was a windfall site.

 

The Committee Manager read out a written statement submitted by Councillor Payne (Ward Councillor – City Council):

      i.         As a City Councillor for Castle ward which includes the McManus Estate, she was supportive of the principle of design for 259-301 Histon Road and its inclusion of 40% affordable housing. 

    ii.         Stated her appreciation to the Guy Turvill for his efforts to work with residents to minimise the damage and vandalism occurring on site.

   iii.         Wished to request that further consideration be given to two aspects of the proposed.

a.    Height and proximity to Tavistock Road. The suggestion of three storey apartments would mean these houses become significantly overlooked, greatly reducing the quality of life of existing residents.  Three storey blocks are also out of keeping with the surrounding properties on the McManus Estate.

b.    Preservation of trees forming the boundary between application site and Tavistock Road. The row of conifer trees between the application site and the houses on Tavistock Road form a boundary, offering noise protection and privacy to residents.  They were also a haven for wildlife.  These trees were already damaged by vehicles entering and leaving the development.  While the application regards these trees to be of limited quality, their preservation was important for the privacy of existing residents. Requested this tree boundary be maintained and improved before the new development was occupied. Queried who would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the conifer trees.

 

Councillor Green proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include informatives:

        i.         Signage to prevent poor parking.

      ii.         Boundary treatment in the landscape condition.

 

This amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a balcony screen condition.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative regarding hedgehogs.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.         the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report; [and]

    ii.         the removal of Condition 8; [and]

   iii.         the following additional condition:

a.    a balcony screen condition;

[and]

  iv.         informatives included on the planning permission in respect of:

a.    Signage prevent poor parking.

b.    Boundary treatment in the landscape condition.

c.    an informative regarding hedgehogs.